RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Dear Ian,
See comments below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 01 July 2003 22:33
> To: 'Chris Angus'; Ian Niles; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Comments below.
>
> -Ian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:16 PM
> > To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > See my comments/questions below (prefixed CJA>).
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 01 July 2003 21:16
> > To: 'Chris Angus'; Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Comments below.
> >
> > -Ian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:01 PM
> > > To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > I thought that that was precisely what you had said in
> > > response to Matthew's
> > > question. He was specifically asking what you wrap into
> > > naturalism and
> > > voiced the opinion that 10 naturalists in a room for a week
> > > would not agree
> > > about everything, a view with which you concurred in your answer.
> > >
> > > Is your definition of 'natural' anything that is not
> > > 'supernatural'?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > >If so
> > > does it equate to 'anything that is regarded as existing not
> > > outside of
> > > space/time'?
> >
> > Yes, for me, supernatural covers everything that is assumed
> > to exist outside
> > of space/time.
> >
> > CJA> Does this include 'universals'?
>
> It depends on how you define universals. If you regard them
> as Platonic
> forms, then yes they would be included among the supernatural. If you
> regard them as being wholly instantiated in the physical
> world in some way,
> then no they would not be among the supernatural.
MW: So presumably you would not admit the null set then. You seem to be
excluding a lot of maths which doesn't care much about what exists in the
natural world.
>
> >
> > > If so, what scope do you put on 'existing'?
> >
> > I don't know what this question means.
> >
> > CJA> It was a difficult question to phrase because I am not
> > sure what you
> > mean by 'existing', so let me just ask "What do you mean by
> > 'existing'?".
>
> I don't think I can define what I mean by "existing". If
> there is a set of
> semantic primitives, then "exists" is surely one of them.
MW: But if you can't say what it means it is not much use.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > > Sent: 01 July 2003 20:19
> > > To: 'Chris Angus'; Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > I didn't say that the hypothesized naturalists wouldn't
> > > agree about
> > > what is "natural". I just assumed that they would disagree
> > > about many other
> > > things. As I've said before, my notion of a supernatural
> > > object is anything
> > > that is regarded as existing outside of space/time, e.g.
> > > immaterial souls,
> > > Platonic forms, etc.
> > >
> > > -Ian
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:56 AM
> > > > To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology
> as science)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > > If you cannot agree about what constitutes 'natural' how can
> > > > you agree on
> > > > what is 'supernatural'. This seems to be a very shaky line
> > > > of reasoning.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Chris Angus
> > > >
> > > > > > MW: It seems then that we need to identify what you
> > wrap up into
> > > > > > naturalism. I suspect if you put 10 naturalists in a room
> > > > for a week
> > > > > > they would not all agree about everything.
> > > >
> > > > > IN: I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't agree about
> > > > everything, but that
> > > > > doesn't matter. As long as they agree that there is,
> > > > currently at least,
> > > > no
> > > > > good reason to posit supernatural entities, that would be
> > > > enough, I think.
> > > > > By supernatural entities, I mean thinks like immaterial
> > > > Cartesian souls,
> > > > > Platonic forms, Leibnitzian monads, Berkeleyan ideas, and
> > > > all the rest of
> > > > > the stuff which was assumed to exist outside of space/time
> > > > purely on the
> > > > > basis of a priori theorizing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>